Arts in Education Model Development and Dissemination Grant Program (AEMDD) Pre-Application Webinar U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement Improvement Programs March 18, 2014

Agenda  Welcome  Program Overview  AEMDD Priorities  AEMDD Selection Criteria  Monitoring and Reporting Requirements  Grant Submission Process  Final Q&A

3 A Few Notes on Q&A W e have budgeted time after each speaker for Q&A. Participants should submit their questions via the webinar Q&A function. Please only submit questions relevant to the topic being addressed by the current speaker. Due to time constraints, we may not be able to answer all questions received. If your question is not addressed, you can submit it to We cannot respond to each inquiry with an individual response, but we will regularly post answers to the most frequently asked questions on our website:

4 A Few Notes on Q&A (cont’d) What We Can Address Content of the AEMDD Notice and Application Timeline of the program Application process What We Cannot Address Questions about the eligibility of a specific entity Questions about the competitiveness of a specific entity or project design Substantive explanation of the rationale behind inclusion or exclusion of specific items in the AEMDD application beyond what is in the Federal Register

What’s New in 2014? Pre-Application Webinar Available funding amount increased -$8,655,781 available for approximately 17 new awards Average award size increased - $500,000 average ($450,000-$550,000 range) Competitive Preference Priorities -Two Competitive Preference Priorities have been removed New Selection Criteria/point values -Quality of the Design 25 points (logic models required) -Quality of the Management Plan 20 points -Quality of the Evaluation 20 points

AEMDD Program Authorized under section 10401, part D, Subpart 1 of Title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. To support the further development, documentation, evaluation and dissemination of innovative, cohesive models that: 1) integrate standards-based arts education into the core elementary and middle school curricula 2) strengthen arts instruction in these grades and 3) improve students’ academic performance, including their skills in creating, performing, and responding to the arts. Grants are four (4) years and include an optional planning year. Authorization Purpose

AEMMD Program Eligibility -or consortium of LEAs including charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law and regulations May partner with one or more of the following: Non profit arts organizations or governmental arts organizations State educational agency (SEA) or regional educational service agency. Institution of higher education Public or private agency, institution, or organization, such as a community- or faith-based organization Local Educational Agencies

AEMMD Program Eligibility One or more non-profit organizations or governmental arts organizations Must work in partnership with one or more LEAs May partner with one or more: SEA or regional educational service agency. Institution of higher education. Public or private agency, institution, or organization, such as a community- or faith-based organization. Non-profit or governmental arts organizations

Q&A Please submit questions via the chat box.

AEMDD Priorities This priority supports projects that are based on research and have demonstrated their effectiveness in: (1) integrating standards-based arts education into the core elementary or middle school curriculum, (2) strengthening standards-based arts instruction in the elementary or middle school grades, and (3) improving the academic performance of students in elementary or middle school grades, including their skills in creating, performing, and responding to the arts.  In order to be eligible for the AEMDD program, an applicant must propose to serve at least one elementary or middle school in which 35% or more of the children enrolled are from low- income households as defined by Title I. Absolute Priority Application Requirement

Competitive Preference Priorities Applicants can earn up to an additional 10 points depending on how well they address each of the two Competitive Preference Priorities (CPP’s). Improving student achievement in persistently lowest-achieving schools and/or Providing services to students enrolled in persistently lowest- achieving schools (as defined in the notice). CPP 1 -Turning Around Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools ( 0 to 5 points ). Projects that are designed to improve student achievement (as defined in the notice) or teacher effectiveness through the use of high-quality digital tools or materials, which may include preparing teachers to use the technology to improve instruction, as well as developing, implementing, or evaluating digital tools or materials. CPP 2 –Technology ( 0 to 5 points)

Persistently Lowest Achieving Schools Persistently lowest achieving school means- as determined by the state: any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is among the lowest achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater. The Department considers persistently lowest achieving schools to be schools listed on the Student Improvement Grant (SIG) Tier I and Tier II list. Student Improvement Grant site:

School Improvement Grant Site

Selection Criteria Need for Project Significance of the Project Quality of Project Design Quality of Project Personnel Quality of the Management Plan Quality of the Project Evaluation

Need for Project (15 Points)  The extent to which the proposed project will provide services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure.  The extent of which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.

Significance (10 Points)  The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, process or techniques) that will result from the proposed project including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings.

Quality of the Project Design (25 points)  The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.  The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory.  The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.  The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the grant.

Strong Theory Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model. The following links are resources available to assist you in developing a logic model: archive.htmlhttp:// archive.html

Logic Model Resources

Quality of Project Personnel (10 points)  The extent to which the applicant encourages applications from persons who have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability.  The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

Quality of the Management Plan (20 points)  The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.  The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.  The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

Quality of the Project Evaluation (20 points)  The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.  The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress towards achieving the intended outcomes.  The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence of promise.

Evidence of Promise Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

Evidence of Promise Evidence of promise means the conditions in paragraphs (i) and (ii) are met: i) There is at least one study that is a— (A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; (B) Quasi-experimental study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or (C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations. (ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), link:

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Quarterly calls are conducted to monitor the progress of projects and to provide technical assistance. Annual performance reports are required in order to receive continuation funding. Project Performance Measures must be addressed as part of the interim annual performance report. At the end of your project period each grantee is required to submit a final performance report, including financial information.

GPRA Performance Measures (1) The percentage of students participating in arts model projects funded through the AEMDD program who demonstrate proficiency in mathematics compared to those in control or comparison groups. (2) The percentage of students participating in arts model projects who demonstrate proficiency in reading compared to those in control or comparison groups.

Q&A Please submit questions via the chat box.

Application Submission Procedures and Tips  Step 1 - Find Grant Opportunity  Step 2 - Download Application Package  Step 3 - Complete the Registration Process  Step 4 - Complete and Submit the Application Package via Grants.gov by April 28, 2014 at 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time.

Submission Procedures and Tips

Register early in Grants.gov Obtain DUNS Number Register with SAM Username & Password AOR Authorization TRACK AOR STATUS

Submission Procedures and Tips

What to Expect After Submitting an Application:  Submission Confirmation Screen  Submission Receipt (with "Track My Application" link)  Submission Validation (or Rejection with Errors)  Grantor Agency Retrieval  Agency Specific Tracking Number Assignment

Application Review Process Reviewers will read applications, prepare a written evaluation, and score the applications assigned to their panel, using the selection criteria. OII will prepare a rank order of applications based on the evaluation of their quality by the peer reviewers according to the selection criteria. The Secretary will make final awards after considering the rank ordering and other information. Applicants will receive notification of application status (successful, unsuccessful). Applicants will receive application scores and comments.

Final Q&A Please submit questions via the chat box.

CONTACT US If your questions were not addressed today, or if you have additional questions please contact us. AEMDD Program website: ndex.html ndex.html Call: